Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, recently told a reporter he believed Mormonism be a cult. When the pastor of one of the nation’s best-known Southern Baptist churches says something like that, it captures attention. The statement was used as evidence that Jeffress is a hate-monger. Radio pundit Glenn Beck, a Mormon, mentioned the incident on his radio program, expressing confusion that a Christian pastor could hold such a notion. Surely Jeffress is in the minority. But is he?
Recently, The Week magazine (October 21, 2011) reported on a poll in which 75% of one-thousand Protestant pastors surveyed said Mormons were not Christians. When only the responses from the pastors of mainline churches were considered, the figure dropped to 48%, smaller to be sure but still significant. “Mainline churches,” which would exclude Jeffress’ Southern Baptist Convention, are usually considered to be somewhat more moderate to liberal in their view of theological issues.
Beck complained that the critics of Mormonism had ignored the obvious connection his denomination has to Christianity. After all, he contended, “Jesus Christ is in our name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” Beck surely knows better. Would he argue that the People’s Republic of China has a republican form of government? Would he insist Christian Scientists are the most scientifically-minded Christians?
What makes any group Christian is its commitment to certain affirmations held by Christians through some twenty centuries. That is more important than having “Jesus,” “Christ,” or “Jesus Christ” in the group’s name. Even though they don’t have Jesus’ name in their denominational title no one questions the Christian heritage of such groups as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the United Methodist Church, and many others whose names reflect some doctrinal distinctive, ethnic make-up, or regional origins.
When Jeffress suggested Mormonism is a cult, he probably had in mind the classic description of a cult popular when he and I began our theological studies. At that time, the term “cult” would not have called to mind groups like the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones’s People’s Church. Instead, according to this definition, a cult is a group that reveres as authoritative revelation some book or collection of writings in addition to the Bible (eg. The Book of Mormon), embraces teachings that contradict Christian orthodoxy, and generally insists that only adherents of the group are real Christians. Beck doesn’t seem to embrace that last viewpoint but it would hardly add to his audience if he made such an opinion public. Still, if his openness represents the official LDS position, it is a departure from the denomination’s earlier view of non-Mormons. Historically, Joseph Smith claimed God had revealed to him that no Christian denomination represented the true church and that he, Smith, would restore genuine Christianity.
While Mormon claims about revelation given to Joseph Smith and the Native Americans as descendents of rebellious, apostate Jews seem strange and demand attention by specialists, it is their doctrinal stance that is most troubling to orthodox Christians. Troublingly, especially, since one source suggests the Mormons add some 300,000 converts yearly, many of coming from our churches.
What are these teachings to which so many Protestant pastors object? Please note, objections to Mormonism almost always focus on its doctrine; many of those Christians who would question Mormon doctrine admire the movement’s commitment to strengthening families and call for moral purity in society in general. In fact, many Protestants have worked alongside Mormons in pursuit of these common goals. Still, LDS teachings remain a barrier. Consider the following examples of teachings which were once and perhaps still endorsed by the Mormon establishment.
Mormons at one time believed and perhaps still believe God was once a man who became God. A popular Mormon saying sums up this position, “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become.”
Mormons at one time insisted and perhaps still insist Jesus Christ was conceived when God—who has a physical body—had intercourse with the Virgin Mary.
Mormons at one time argued and perhaps still argue that salvation is achieved by works. The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith is rejected. The death and resurrection of Jesus don’t so much provide our salvation as point to our final victory over death.
Mormons at one time claimed and perhaps still claim that God the Father has many wives with whom he has countless children who do not possess physical bodies until they enter the bodies of those being born on earth.
Mormons at one time rejected and perhaps still reject the orthodox view of the Trinity, a notion which, more than any other, distinguishes Christian theology.
While most Protestants believe the Bible is the source for doctrine and practice and that all doctrinal affirmations must be judged by the Bible, Mormons believe The Book of Mormon provides a corrective to the Bible and that there is ongoing revelation through the Presidents of the church. Mormons insist the Bible is God’s word but use a “corrected” edition of the King James Bible.
These teachings are clearly contrary to orthodox or traditional Christian doctrine.
This is hardly surprising. Mormon historians attributed the movement’s rapid growth, in part, to fact it was “not just another frontier variant of Christianity but a vast renovation of Christianity as a whole.”[1] In fact, that may be understating the desire of early Mormons to distance themselves from orthodox Christianity. Joseph Smith claimed God had told him that all the creeds of the Christian churches were “an abomination” and true Christianity disappeared from the earth shortly after it appeared following the death and resurrection of Christ. This position is corroborated by The Book of Mormon which states: “Behold there are save two churches only; one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil…the whore of all the earth.”[2] The Lamb’s church was, of course, Mormonism. This was the view Mormons held until the early 1990’s.
With the coming of the 1990’s there seemed to be a new desire among some Mormon leaders for the movement to be seen as more mainstream, as being akin to once eschewed Christian groups. Along with this, there appeared what some have designated as a kind of “neo-orthodox” Mormonism, a Mormonism which pursued a greater affinity with more orthodox Christianity. The Mormons’ desire to repackage their message for a new century is neither wrong nor disingenuous; most Christian groups see the need to appeal to the times—without losing touch with their doctrinal roots. Indeed, many Southern Baptist churches have discreetly dropped “Baptist” from their names since the term seems to inspire ridicule and/or ire in the general population.
But what of the supposed doctrinal reformation in Mormonism? Is it genuine as Richard Mouw seems to believe[3] or is it simply “cosmetic” as Abanes suggests.[4] It’s beyond the scope of this essay to explore the matter in depth. Don Closson reviewed the issue on the Probe Ministries website in 2005 and his conclusion is worth quoting at length.
In spite of the recent changes in Mormon theology, a person who holds to the full spectrum of Mormon teachings has a view of God, salvation, and particularly the relationship between mankind and its creator, that is radically different from what traditional Christians believe and what we think the Bible teaches. This is not a reason to stop talking with Mormons; in fact, it is why we need to continue to express the reasons for the hope we have in Christ.[5]
Imagine we could invite Christian thinkers from the past twenty centuries to evaluate Mormonism. Specifically, they would discuss the question, “Is Mormonism Christian?” We might include the following individuals: Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Cranmer, Arminius, Owen, Wesley, Edwards, Schaff, Spurgeon, and Machen.[6] How would this panel answer that crucial question? Some, like Athanasius, would look at Mormon Christology and say, “No.” Some, like Luther and Wesley, would look at Mormonism’s imprecise view of salvation by grace and say, “No.” Though some of them, like Schaff or Machen, might ask for more evidence, I can’t imagine any of them giving an unequivocal “Yes” to the question.
As a Baptist, I am not ready to pass judgment on an individual Mormon’s relationship with Jesus Christ. If Glenn Beck, who will never hear my criticism, should hear my criticism, he should know I am not questioning his spiritual condition. At the same time, I am not ready to say, “Mormons are just like us Baptists, only different.”
Obviously, then, when Jeffress and others raise questions about Mormonism, they are not being hate-mongers; they are asking legitimate questions. Their secular critics (who may have no doctrinal perspective of their own) betray an ignorance of both Mormonism and Christianity.
But, of course, all this interest in Mormonism is not happening because Americans are suddenly interested in esoteric matters of theology.
This brings us to the issue which has inspired all the discussion of Mormonism. Since at least two potential presidential candidates are Mormons a number of questions are being asked: Can a Mormon be president? (The obvious answer is yes.) Should a Christian who believes Mormonism to be a cult vote for a Mormon? (That is the more complicated question.)
Well, conservative Christians and Mormons share many of the same perspectives on issues like abortion, homosexuality, and the importance of the family. A Mormon in the White House is more likely to resist the pressure to provide federal dollars to pay for abortions or to encourage same-sex marriages than a non-Mormon who has a secular or naturalistic worldview. Will a Mormon ban coffee and beer from the White House? I don’t know; given the number of beer summits we’ve had it might not be a bad thing.
Many Christians are concerned about the “endorsement” of Mormonism implicit in electing a Mormon. There may be some validity to that concern. Indeed, should a Mormon be nominated as a presidential candidate for the 2012 election, the Mormons will get a lot of free publicity, just as they did during the Winter Olympics in 2002. Yet, I don’t recall admitting to membership any who decided to become Southern Baptist because Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency. I’d have to do some research to find out if Richard Nixon’s election was followed by an influx of new members into the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Ultimately, I recall a remark attributed to Martin Luther—“Better to be ruled by a wise Turk [Muslim] than a foolish Christian.” Of course, in sixteenth-century Germany Luther didn’t have much chance of being ruled by a Turk of any kind. We could well have a Mormon elected in 2012.
Perhaps we should ask any nominee, regardless of his/her religious commitment, certain questions that will tell us if he/she will be wise or foolish in leading the nation.
[1] Edwin S. Gaustad and Leigh E. Schmidt, The Religious History of America (Revised Edition), San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002, p. 180.
[2] Quoted in Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2005, 377.
[3] Richard J. Mouw, “Forward,” The New Mormon Challenge, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, p. 13.
[4] Abanes, p. 385.
[5] See “Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy?” at www.probe.org.
[6] I’ve not included women theologians like Georgia Harkness or Dorothy Day since some Mormons (but not all) would object to women serving in such a capacity.
